Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 8
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-236 (2026)

Cooperation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Every public official and department shall render all assistance and cooperation within the official's or department's jurisdictional power which may further the objects of this chapter. An institution or agency to which the juvenile court awards a juvenile shall give the court, an officer appointed by the court or the county attorney any information concerning the juvenile as the court, the officer or the county attorney may require.

B. The juvenile court or the county attorney may seek the cooperation of organizations whose object is to protect or aid children and family life. The juvenile court or the county attorney in each county may establish, or assist in the establishment of, any other public council or committee having as its object the prevention of juvenile delinquency, including community based alternative programs. The juvenile court or county attorney may cooperate with, or participate in, the work of any council or committee for the purpose of preventing or decreasing juvenile delinquency, including improving recreational, health and other conditions in the community affecting juvenile welfare.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases, 1965–2000 · leading case: State v. Garza, 623 P.2d 367 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Garza, 623 P.2d 367 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 16× “The question presented is whether the 1979 amendment to A.R.S. § 8-236 is constitutionally valid insofar as it makes the appeals provisions of the Rules of Procedure for Juvenile Court applicable to appeals from parental termination proceedings 1 or whether it is an unlawful…”
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty., Juv. Action No. B-9385, 674 P.2d 845 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 8-236; see State v. Garza, 128 Ariz.”
In Re Frank H., 973 P.2d 1194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “See A.R.S. § 8-236. ¶ 13 Furthermore, a speedy disposition is essential to achieving one of the primary goals of the juvenile justice system: protection of the child through treatment and rehabilitation.”
In Re the Appeal in Gila Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-3824, 637 P.2d 740 (Ariz. 1981). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 8-236(A), as amended Laws 1980; Rule 28, Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court, 17A A.”
Denise H. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 972 P.2d 241 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “S.Ct. 42. We disagree with counsel. The duty of candor requires that an attorney not make a false statement of fact or law to a court, offer false evidence, or fail to disclose a material fact or controlling legal authority.”
In re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty., Juv. Action No. A-26961, 660 P.2d 479 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 8× “§ 8-122 and enacted A.R.S. § 8-236 which provides: A. Any aggrieved party in any proceeding under this title may appeal from a final order of the juvenile court to the court of appeals in the manner provided in rules of procedure for the juvenile court as promulgated or approved…”
State v. Fowler, 752 P.2d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “A 1979 amendment to A.R.S. § 8-236 made the appeals provisions of the Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court applicable to appeals from parental termination proceedings.”
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 884 P.2d 234 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the termination of the parent-child relationship between the mother and her children is in the best interest of the children.”
In Re the Appeal in Yavapai Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-8545, 680 P.2d 146 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 2× “Though we do not question our holding in Juvenile Action No. S-933, we wish to make clear that the definition of “final order” provided therein does not apply to orders entered in dependency proceedings.”
State v. Berlat, 707 P.2d 303 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 3× “See A.R.S. § 8-236. 2 To protect this right, we believe that due process extends to safeguard a juvenile’s appeal at least through the process of perfecting the appeal.”
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty., Juv. Action No. J-84536-S, 617 P.2d 54 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “The legislature has granted juveniles the right to appeal by enacting A.R.S. § 8-236 2 . The Arizona Constitution, Art.”
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Juv. Action No. S-933, 660 P.2d 1205 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 2× “The right to appeal in termination proceedings exists pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-236 which provides in part: A.”
Show all 60 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-236(A) — 19 cases
In Re the Appeal in Gila Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-3824, 637 P.2d 740 (Ariz. 1981). “See A.R.S. § 8-236(A), as amended Laws 1980; Rule 28, Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court, 17A A.”
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty., Juv. Action No. B-9385, 674 P.2d 845 (Ariz. 1983). “A.R.S. § 8-236; see State v. Garza, 128 Ariz.”
In Re the Appeal in Yavapai Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-8545, 680 P.2d 146 (Ariz. 1984). “Though we do not question our holding in Juvenile Action No. S-933, we wish to make clear that the definition of “final order” provided therein does not apply to orders entered in dependency proceedings.”
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cnty., 701 P.2d 1213 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
In Re Kory L., 979 P.2d 543 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-236(C) — 1 case
In Re Frank H., 973 P.2d 1194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “See A.R.S. § 8-236. ¶ 13 Furthermore, a speedy disposition is essential to achieving one of the primary goals of the juvenile justice system: protection of the child through treatment and rehabilitation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-236(D) — 2 cases
Denise H. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 972 P.2d 241 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “S.Ct. 42. We disagree with counsel. The duty of candor requires that an attorney not make a false statement of fact or law to a court, offer false evidence, or fail to disclose a material fact or controlling legal authority.”
Morger v. Superior Court, 637 P.2d 310 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.